.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

they do seem a little conflicted in the message :-D i grabbed this one because it came from the NYT. any one else and it might not have been so interesting.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

WHAT? I wish just once these "news" people at the New York Times would spit the brie and wine out and write about the real dynamics of the Middle East, like the role that tribalism plays in the lives of the people from Morocco to Cambodia, and beyond.

This Arab revolution thing all started in Tunisia where one member of a tribe on the outside looking in, burned himself to death to expunge the personal shame and humiliation associated with being arrested, and having his un-licensed vegetable cart seized by a woman police officer, from the dominant tribe. I personally feel the young man had a case, his mother said her son offered the police woman the customary bribe, but she refused the money. Believe me, in Arab countries only the lowest of the low can’t bribe their way past the police, especially a female cop who is not supposed to even speak to a male in the line of duty.

Give me a break. Hey, better yet give yourself, your children, and your grand children a break, (before long their going to need one badly) do a little research on your own. Don't take my word for it, find out the truth for yourself, but even better, don't take the word of those hack writing imbeciles at The New York Times, they are spinning you and the truth like a toy top.

The people in this part of the world don't want democracy, at least they don't want democracy like you or for that matter I understand democracy. This revolution business is just an opportunity to put their sandals on the necks of those who have oppressed them, (the "revolutionary" tribe) for decades if not centuries. In another twenty or fifty years the worm will have turned 180 degrees and 2011's democrat (little d) tribes will have become Tunisia's, Egypt's and Libya’s mid 21st century oppressor tribes.

I ask you now and I ask you to respond again in 30, 90, 180, 365, 1,000 and 10,000 days and tell me is Egypt any closer to democracy now than she was say in 2009! Remember now, I asked first.

Kingbee, are you saying that the best the people of the Arab world can ever hope for is oppression by a dictator? There is no other option for them, ever? That is indeed depressing. As dysfunctional as our government is, at least we’re not stuck with one guy for 40 years at a time.

Kingbee, are you saying that the best the people of the Arab world can ever hope for is oppression by a dictator?...

No, I am not saying that. I am asking you what is an Egyptian. A Saudi? A Jordanian? Do you know? I don't. Yet we all seem to think that each of these Western names is a separate country populated by a separate peoples with a common history. It ain't so. In Saudi Arabia there are several tribes (nations in waiting) all struggling for supremacy. Other (so called) nations are hopelessly fragmented.

Every ethnic or tribal group in the Middle East wants its own national (read the word national as TRIBAL) homeland. Instead, we insist on them copying the German national model which England in the 19th Century and the UN today dictating the shape of national borders.

Many if not most people in this area hate their neighbors and would happily rip their neighbors' eyes out if left alone. Dictators are all that prevents bloody murder now. Iraq under Saddam Hussein is a good example. Iraq could well become three or even five separate nations like the United States of America will soon be.

Look at the artificial European national divisions once called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (USSR) and Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia. The last two are Woodrow Wilson’s creations, and will likely self-destruct into 12 or more separate nations. I think the current total is ten. Even at that stray particles of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia will attach themselves to Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia, Albania, Kosovo, Greece, and on and on and on. The USSR dissolved into 15 nations with many more to come.

Tribalism is even more rampant or common in Africa. When the Africa tribes get into the swing of killing their (to our eyes) countrymen, the past violence in Rwanda, Uganda, and the Congo will look like a silly fraternity boy prank.

it is one of the things that makes the US unique. we chose to form and to mix. other than Australia, there are no there are no countries that have had this choice and made it work.

it is one of the reasons that so many of us are against the hyphenated way that people identify themselves. we are Americans, or eventually, we are a failed state.....

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I’m not a sociology expert but what you say about tribalism sounds logical. But weren’t we all small tribes at one time? Actually weren’t we all of the same tribe at one point in history? Why can’t tribes co-exist?

It seems to me that problems start when tribes or groups of people are oppressed by a government. They feel disenfranchised and then want to break away from who’s controlling them. I think something like that happened 235 years ago. In our case, at the time weren’t most people here (minus the natives) of the same ‘tribe’ as their countrymen in the British Isles?

I’m not refuting that tribalism exists, I’m just hopeful that maybe people can come together for a greater good. Maybe I’m un-realistic.

there are many pre-history examples of tribes merging when some disaster struck. tribes migrated and married into other tribes. eventually, they lost individual identity and became one.

in this country there were many (the majority) who were not in favor of breaking with England. if we had not had organized and very smart people making and executing the plan and post war plan, we would have failed. they had a vision and the ability to make that vision a reality.

we also had some advantages. we had space. we had natural resources. by the time we had our revolution, we had a survivor mentality. coming here and making a living was hard work. the tribal mentality was not entirely gone. people of like mind and background tended to stick together.

what is different now for us? we have less space. we have fewer resources shared between many more people. we have a large number of people who are not survivors and who produce nothing. we have people who exist to makes sure that there are divisions between people by race, economic status, etc. we are more tribal now than we have ever been and it's getting worse. the idea that the individual effort and reward are what make a people great, is pretty much gone. the idea that you owe an allegiance to a country that gives you the opportunity to succeed and be free, is gone. we are close to a 50/50 split between those who produce and those who have their hand out.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I suggest you ask the prophet Moses that question. Better yet read a little history either written by, or made by Moses. Start with the Bible and read Numbers; Chapter 31. Blue, where do you think the Nazis’ learned how to commit war crimes on a grand scale?

Next, you may want to check into that little Clan Campbell v Clan MacDonald brouhaha thing in Scotts' Land. Don't forget those "peaceful" Native American tribes like the Aztecs (the PC crown are always gushing about the Aztecs) I wish to remind you that it was the Aztec who raised captive human sacrifice... (Oops, sorry, I meant to type involuntary open-heart surgery) to a high art form. :roll:

...Why can’t tribes co-exist? It seems to me that problems start when tribes or groups of people are oppressed by a government.

Oppression of other governments and other peoples is what we humans invented governments to do. It’s the only thing governments do well. That and somewhat restraining the most unruly citizens among us until their knack for violence is needed by society. I am not making excuses for us humans, Blue. I am just pointing out the obvious to you.

...In our case... weren’t most people here (minus the natives) of the same tribe as their countrymen in the British Isles?

Are you refering to the Scotsmen, the Irish, the Welsh, the Anglo-Saxons, the Huguenot French, the Catholic French, the Extremadura Spanish, the Dutch, the Portuguese, Walloons, Norse French, Swedes, Prussians, Pomeranians, Hessians, Norwegians, Vikings, religious exiles like the Pilgrims, Anglo-Catholics, Baptist, Anti-Baptist, Irish-Catholics, British-Catholics, Quakers, Scots Irish, or Jews? Just which untribal tribe or clan did we all spring from back there in jolly old England?

The "Native" Americans were certainly tribal, how you think they got tagged with the name "Indian Tribes?" Guess what, Indians are not interested in loosing their tribal identity either. Tribes may make alliances with each other when it is to their mutual benefit. In the late thirties or early forties so did the USA with Great Britain or Italy with Germany, Germany with Russia, Russia with Japan, Japan with Germany, France with Great Brittan, Great Brittan and France with Norway, Germany with Finland, pant, pant, pant phew.

...I’m not refuting that tribalism exists, I’m just hopeful that maybe people can come together for a greater good. Maybe I’m un-realistic.

I think you are slightly naive, meaning you have never considered the issue, so lets get started, what is the greater good you speak of is, other than maintaining the tribe and therefore tribalism. This is not written to put you down but to encourage you to think for yourself and too help you break away from those Politically Correct elite so called writers, down there at the New York Times. Good talking to you Blue. Have a good day, and may all your honey flows be long ones.

Don't eat crow Blue. It's a long road that never turns. However, I have watched Egypt starting with King Farouk, through Gamal Abdel Nasser, up until the present. I have yet to see much if any change, and neither has the Egyptians. What the Egyptian Army is about is saving their "bacon" from a revolutionary movement that if left to its own devices will eat its own young, similar to what happened or is happening in Iran. No Army worth it's salt want's war. All revolutions (well almost all revolutions) ends up fighting multiple wars mostly to keep the revolutionaries in power by setting up straw men to distract the population. Armies know this and that they will be the ones who will suffer first, and be the ones who will suffer the most in case of war. Then if the war is lost.... well that's the Army's fault isn't it, and heads will roll. The army is danged if they do and danged if they don't. The Yum Kipper war is a good example. Once a war starts no one knows when, were, or how it will end.

It seems that Hillary Clinton had her own up close and personal moment in Egypt today, similar to George Bush’s "special" moment in Iraq or Vice President Nixon’s “special" moment in South America. Does this mean that Hillary is ready to change political parties now and become a Republican??? LOL!!! Don’t you love it when a plan matures or comes together? Check out what the Egyptians were calling Hillary.

I don’t know what to think :? Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you :(

Just another example why we should not be borrowing money from China to give to these places that hate us. Let the Saudias give them money if they need money. Unfortunately our Dems and Republicans are spendaholics and can't resist giving away our $$$$. If they’re going to spend money we don’t have, at least spend it at home….it least here it has a chance of stimulating the economy.

the thing is, the turn Egypt has taken was fully predictable. you had passionate kids with good intentions backed by the power of the radicals...calling for "democracy". there is no way for that to end well. there is a reason the the Muslim Brotherhood has been stomped on by the more secular Arab/Persian governments. it is the same reason the more secular countries tossed out the so called Palestinians.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Unfortunately all power is vested in the hand that holds the purse strings. What is the use of acquiring and holding onto power if you're not allowed to wield your power in an arbitrary or capricious fashion? Where's the fun in that?